|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.227.141.114
I was just looking at Waxxy's post below and the laser player caught my eye. A quick Google and I find it's not only a thing of the past but current production, see the link. With everyone posting the latest gimmick to attract the millennial faction I'm really surprised that this had not been posted. Also in 20 years I've been pursuing this hobby I've never come across it.
Has anyone had personal experience with the laser TT? I like the premise, I just wonder about the execution? In recent years we have had vendors come in to measure, at close tolerance, with laser devices and the results are amazing with very definite cost advantage. I have wondered about the application in our instance. Reading their story, this is derived from 80's technology so I'm curious if it has been kept somewhat current.
Follow Ups:
Lived with one for more than 4 years.
At one stage I had 3 units at home.
2 fitted with the $3500 hi-resolution upgrade, and one without.
Once you heard the hi res version, it is very difficult to go back to the normal version.
If you own one and wish to make a comment, it would be appreciated if you could tell us which version you own.Here's a few other experiences:
The noise filter can be switched off.
But it is not printed down in the owners manual.
I think Chiba san intentionally blanked out this noise blanker function.
When asked about it, his initial reply was to tell his customer to look up a certain page in the manual. But in that page where he said the instructions would be, there is just a blank area. Haha! He had forgotten that he had blanked out that section.
The audibility of the switchable noise blanker filter is system dependant.
On some systems you may hear it so clearly, it compells you to switch it off religiously, even if you are only going to listen to it causally.
On some system it isn't so audible at all.
Now you don't really hear it as a "sound"
It manifest itself as taller, wider soundstage if the filter is disengaged.
If left turned on you may notice it as if the soundstage isn't as naturally life sized as you would normally hear it.The surface noise doesn't really bothers me, and I am one who gets bothered with many things.
I've a few records that I've cleaned once and continued to play them subsequently straight after taking them out from their paper inner sleeves. Just a couple of nights ago, I pulled a bunch of 7" records bought many years ago and haven't been cleaned and proceed to play them without cleaning them at all.The other thing is - many records dun really sound great if they had just been cleaned and dried. They may sound harsh in some cases. But after a few hours of letting them breathe in open air, they then sound much better. The other way of making them sound better is let them played through the ELP, then play another record, and then play the first record again. Very often there is very audible sound improvement. It is a very large degree of change. If you do own the ELP and wish to do this test, remember not to let the side that has been played to be touched by another surface because you will hear a change in the sound if you do. Whatever last touched the surface of the vinyl will impart its sonic signature onto the surface of the vinyl.
Which brings me to the next topic:
Different water/fluid that is used to clean the viny will imparts its own signature on the vinyl surface. On the ELP, this is very audible,
I generally prefer the sound of any vinyl that has been cleaned and dried without any physical contact with any material other than water. I have a spinner that allows me to clean my records with just water spray and then it spins and dry my records without touching any other materials. It all contactless cleaning and drying. Records cleaned/dried this way sound way way better.
Lastly, I shut down and re-powered up my ELP before playing any side of records. Soundstaging is twice as big and twice as tall compared to the usual way of playing. The sense of dynamics is dramatically heightened. Overall there is greater sense of musical ease and separation and delineation is much much improved. The difference is like comparing an expensive $5,000 esoteric SACD player vs a $50 Samsung did player.
If I have the money I would buy a second or 3rd unit to keep as spares, in case the company founder dies and the company folded. That's how much I like mine!
Edits: 04/03/17
Hi Jerome
I passed on this option. Do you know what is changed? Have they upgraded the electronics or just played with the laser. It was very hard to understand what specifically had changed. From what I remember it sounded like they had changed the wavelength of the laser, but it was written as "increasing the speed of the laser" or something like that.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
When the 3 of us (plus a Japanese former colleague who took us there) visited ELP factory we were treated to a comparison between the normal version and the hires version. The hires version sounded something like 6dB louder at that time.
My friends and I all bought a unit each. When I had all 3 units at my home to run them in, I was surprised that the normal version sound just as loud as the other 2 hires version. I did thought at that time, maybe Chiba san made a mistake and didn't provide the hires upgrade as agreed. So I wrote to him asking more specifics about what's in the upgrade - is it on an extra board that we can identify visual. He wasn't very communicative at all.
Still, there are very audible sonic differences between the 2 versions.....
That day, in that ELP factory listening room, I first tried out the memory erase procedure on that demo hires version unit. It was already very audible. And when I've had the unit for more than 2 years later, I discovered another even more effective memory erase procedure that yield even more sonic benefits. This thing has a mini computer inside that retains memory!
I think we bought ours around the same time? In which case I think I was getting confused about the high resolution version available at the time (2011) and the offer Chiba-san had been sending out in the last couple of years. I got the High Resolution analogue circuit, I thought you meant the new "optical" upgrade. When I checked through the emails again, it was nothing more than an improved noise-blanking update which is why I passed on that one. However, in my mind, I remembered at as something related to the laser itself!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
The software has evolved over the years. I bought mine in 2011 having read the original review of the Finial in the early 90s so I knew what to expect. In fact my expectations were suitably "low-balled" that I was pleasantly surprised. You would never purchase it in the belief of any superiority in the sound - it most definitely isn't. Jerome bought the version with built-in RIAA EQ to give a line out signal. I bought the non-EQ version so I could use my own phono stage. I've no idea what the difference would be in sound, but it sounds quite "flat" but very smooth.Soundstage width is very good because you don't have tip azimuth or electrical azimuth to worry about.
I bought it specifically as an additional tool for archiving. It fulfills the brief perfectly. It will even play records I haven't cleaned if I'm just curious to hear them. It certainly isn't excessively finicky about cleanliness like earlier versions.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Too nice. I dun think I'll ever play my precious records with needles again.
Did you have to forgo your coloured Vinyl?
Des
You may try to contact him if you wish to learn more.
No coloured vinyl or picture discs. The reflectance is calibrated with respect to the standard black vinyl disc. Occasionally you find the odd disc that it simply doesn't like, but many times, that it is the label that is the cause! Covering the label with the supplied black discs solves the issue.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I seem to remember a page i read on the web about a high resolution camera that took pictures of a record and the software would record the music and the software would also play the music.
I think it was from the Smithsonian Museum.
You are archiving very old 78s or other old and unplayable media. It will even play a 78 that's been destroyed. Just put it back together on the platter like a jigsaw puzzle and let it play.
I'm really surprised no one has piggy-backed off this idea and used a microscope to feed an image into a computer with some algorithm that would recognize the grooves and ignore dust.
Hi
When did you purchase yours?
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
There was a YouTube video of someone extracting sound from high-rez pictures of a record. Can't find it now. It was pretty crude but recognizable.
A Russian friend of mine described his father (an academic in Russia) using photolithography to duplicate the grooves. You only get mono since you can't really resolve the vertical modulation.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Lots of discussions.
nt
....doesn't sound very good. In 2003, when it was demonstrated at the Stereophile show in NYC, they also had in the room an inexpensive Technics belt-drive turntable with a Shure cartridge. They didn't want to play it - 'everyone wants to hear the laser turntable'. Then Michael Fremer came in and made them play his record on both the Technics and the laser turntable. The Technics was audibly superior.I discussed this in the hall outside the room with Fremer and some other writers from Stereophile. I suggested you need the heat, friction, and physical deformation produced by a stylus in the groove to get good sound off an LP.
Edits: 04/01/17
There have been software changes since then. The current one doesn't suffer from the "dullness" (esp on inner grooves) which is often posted. You don't need the heat, friction, and physical deformation to play the groove at all! You do, if you want it to sound the way you are used to.....
You have to remember, it will ALWAYS sound different irrespective of the analogue electronics, simply because you have fewer distortions due to the mechanical playback system! You don't have LF rumble except that which was cut in the groove, you don't have tracking distortion and you don't have SRA mismatch which is a very signficant form of distortion affecting playback in general since there isn't a "single" value to optimise to.
Whether you like it or not is up to you, but the ELP has a specific place in playing valuable or fragile records (or even damaged ones), that you wouldn't consider playing on a conventional deck. That's why I have one..certainly not for any pretensions to "high end". I agree, it is far from it, but it is an invaluable tool for the archivist.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
... plays dust just as well as it plays the track. No way for it to distinguish between the two and it has nothing like a stylus to help push it out of the way. And it would faithfully read all of the dust even the microscopic stuff. The last US distributor of the machine packaged it with a Loricraft RCM so important was (is) meticulous disc hygiene. That raised the cost of ownership by another $1K +. These days owners might go for a cavitation cleaner I suppose.
BTW some owners reported that a full clean was required every time that a disc was played, unlike normal replay where an initial wet clean may be followed by carbon fibre brushing only for subsequent plays.
whether anyone was pursuing this technology. It seems to me the dust problem could be corrected by putting a transparent coating on the discs that the laser could penetrate but dust could not. Of course, that would make the disc unplayable with a standard stylus.
I also wonder whether this technology could perform better with discs cut specifically with it in mind.
No they haven't simply because of the expertise involved in the optical engineering and the fact that the market for such a device is very niche. Consequently the price of the product would always put it out of reach of the majority of people simply wanting to play records. Let's face it, audiophiles willing to spend large sums on a turntable are a relatively small group!
The barrier you suggest wouldn't work either. The beams are aimed directly at each wall (i.e there are 2 beams 90° apart but normal to the surface. A barrier coating making the LP like a CD or laserdisc would cause refraction of the beam.
To me, the ELP should never be used as a general playback device simply because of this fundamental issue with surface contaminants. When the records are clean, the pops are no more intrusive than with a mechanical system. Since I use the ELP for transcriptions, I simply de-click the file. Significant blemishes require a bit more effort in the restoration, but my transcriptions are for the most part completely blemish free.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
When you say you use the ELP for transcriptions I wonder why you would want to do that. I'm interpreting the word "transcriptions" to mean recordings. Am I correct? If so, I wonder why you would want to make recordings with a record player that doesn't sound as good as an ordinary mechanical record player.
I've been making recordings of vinyl since 1991 and my recordings sound virtually identical to playing the records on my turntable. Therefore, why not use the best sounding record player for transcriptions?
I can understand why you might want to use the ELP on a few specific records with special issues, but I would think you would want to use the best sounding record player for the vast majority of your transcriptions.
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi John
You are absolutely right and I completely agree that a recording should always be done using the best available equipment. Sometimes that means using the ELP.
Actually I DO use a conventional turntable for the majority of my recordings except for those records requiring the optical treatment. Although it might sound like a bit of extravagance to purchase an ELP for those rare (as in both valuable and/or damaged) records where I wouldn't risk damage to either disc or stylus, the reason I bought the ELP was to own what I consider to be something of an achievement in optical engineering. It was something I knew I would own after reading about the Finial deck back in the late 80s early 90s.
When I bought the ELP my expectations had been set appropriately low based on the reviews of that first version of the Finial. I was very pleasantly surprised. Due to the lack of tracking distortion and arm resonances the fundamental sound is better than many decks that have​ not been set up with care. My guess is that the output stage is where the sound degradation occurs. The clicks and pops are not offensive when the record is clean. You actually heard a clip from the ELP that time I shared those files with you!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Anthony,
I considered buying an ELP in 2003 when I upgraded to my present Sota Millennia Vacuum turntable. I ordered ELP's demo CD-R to get an idea of how it sounded and I was pretty disappointed with the sound quality on their digital recording. I had been making my own digital recordings since 1991 and I knew how accurate they were with regard to my own turntable so I believed the ELP really sounded as bad as their recording revealed. Unfortunately, ELP's demo CD-R apparently was not done properly because I later heard other recordings from an ELP owner that sounded quite nice. In fact, if I had been given an accurate recording of the ELP I might actually have bought one. Instead, I decided to buy my Sota Millennia Vacuum with SME V. I kind of wish I had the money to own two expensive turntables because I would like to own an ELP.
Best regards,
John Elison
The thing about the ELP is that due to the LACK of the common forms of distortion in vinyl playback in particular the LF resonance, the ELP is NEVER going to sound as you expect. Originally there were some fundamental issues that made the ELP arguably inferior despite the obvious advantage of non-contact playback. Some of these are why you read negative reviews. The "dull" sound in the inner grooves is a software issue. I think they were applying a "hi cut" filter to minimise the offensive clicks and pops. The other is that it sounds sufficiently DIFFERENT to the expectations of the reviewer that they take a dislike to it. The assumption being that since it is a "Turntable" and is playing a familiar disc, that what they hear will be yet another version of the same. However, it is the lack of the LF resonance that makes it lack the same bass characteristics that people often point to. Consequently the sound will lack the same frisson they get from a conventional mechanical system.
In my recordings I always apply a high pass filter with a steep (linear phase) cut off at 25Hz for classical and 20Hz for jazz and pop. So in my recordings the bass quality is actually very similar with the ELP since I have removed the bloat associated with the low end rise.
The criticism I level at the ELP have more to do with the overall sonic texture which whilst smooth has a slightly "flat" quality to the soundstage. I would say the effect is similar to listening to a downconverted RB version to the original high resolution file. Both are good, but one sounds more visceral.
If I were in your position, I would have made the same choice as you. I think if you had your Technics and an ELP, you would use the Technics almost exclusively for all the reasons you have given. I do!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
"I also wonder whether this technology could perform better with discs cut specifically with it in mind."
The laserdisc came out in the late seventies and had mild success. The audio on them was outstanding although source material was limited. I recall watching the Who's Tommy on one I'm not sure if it was quad (I was naive at the time)but it had four channel sound!
Edits: 04/02/17 04/02/17
I would never consider playing any record, for the purposes of transcription or otherwise, on ANY deck without cleaning it first!
The opinions you read depend very much on the individual expectation when they listen to one for the first time. I read the original review of the Finial (as it was called back then) in HFNRR back whenever that was while I was still at university and was under no illusion as to the compromises likely to be "heard" when I finall bought one. In fact Martin Colloms drew specific attention to the poor response on the inner grooves which he described as worse than an oversized spherical tip!
I purchased one specifically for playback of fragile, damaged or invaluable discs. Although expensive for the sound quality, in some cases it is the ONLY deck which can be used in some cases!
In fact the software is very robust in the current model and I can quite happily "test" second hand record purchases prior to cleaning without skipping. The original Finial would reject anything less than immaculate.Yes, the background is like listening to a room full of people eating rice bubbles in synchrony, but then if one hadn't cleaned the record, what would one expect?
The analogue electronics leave a little to be desired in terms of transparency, so I would describe the sound as a little "flat". However, as I mentioned before, it is purely a tool for me for use in specific instances. Otherwise I have an array of different cartridges and styli on a conventional mechanical deck for the majority of my transcriptions.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: